On the contrary, I dearly hope everyone is reading the context of this conversation in full. I don’t want anyone to miss a single drop of your wit and insight.
Also, I see you still haven’t figured out what an ad hominem is. Well, words are tricky. I’m sure you’ll figure it out soon enough.
That’s not what “ethnically Jewish” means. “Ethnically Jewish” means you had at least one parent who was Jewish. Just like “ethnically black” means you had at least one parent who was black. Orphans raised in gentile homes with no knowledge of their heritage, who discover that their birth parents were Jewish, are ethnically Jewish.
So, that notion of “ethnic feminist” is, not to put too fine a point on it, deeply stupid, because feminism, unlike black, white, hispanic, and, yes, Judaism, is not an ethnicity.
I am curious about the “self-identity” thing, because self-identity is not really a huge part of feminist theory, except for those parts that overlap with queer theory, where self-identity is a huge issue. So, was that a backhanded swipe at me for being queer? Or just another example of you getting confused about what you’re saying?
Well, about as well refuted as you’ve ever refuted anything on this subject, at least.
This is such a fantastic example of you just not understanding how to put together two sentences to form a coherent argument. You start with, “Feminism ha[s] brought equality… for women,” implying that feminists only want equality for women, and don’t care about inequality towards men. But you don’t seem to understand that “equal” needs a comparison. “Equality only for women” is an intellectually vacant concept, because they need someone to be equal with.
And I think we can take your frantic back peddle that you meant “equal” ironically as read. It’s not like you’d convince anyone with it, anyway.
Cool story, bro.
I don’t know that egalitarians work towards equality, actually, as the only people I know who strongly identify as egalitarians are yourself and Linus. And I very much doubt either of you have ever done anything significant to foster equality.
Look, if women want to use the men’s bathrooms because they consider it segregation, then by all means let them. I think they’ll end up regreting it almost immediately. :eek:
That’s a lot like me, an atheist, telling a devout Christian that he’s doing it all wrong. It’s not really as clever as it first seems.
I go into the men’s bathroom when the line for the women’s bathroom is too long, or when there are far fewer women’s bathrooms than men’s (happened at my grad school). There is not really a big difference in the level of cleanliness between the two. There is never any blood in the men’s rooms that I have been in, for example.
I think there is really no reason anyone should have to travel further or wait longer to go to the bathroom, so unisex is the most equal solution.
It’s clearly not in the best interest of men, because women in the men’s bathrooms would soon make lines to the men’s bathroom as long as the one to the women’s bathroom. Also urinals.
That’s actually not a given (queue theory often works in counter logical ways, I remember reading a study which concluded both the men’s and women’s line would be longer). But what matters is that the line for the men’s bathroom would be longer in a unisex situation. Not least because urinals would be made more difficult. But mainly just because women take longer time.
Perfect world scenario: all unisex bathrooms will be stocked with womens paper urine funnels at all times. But would mothers send their daughters to stand and piss next to men?
Well, we seem to have different perceptions then. I’ve seen a lot of “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” but very little “this is what I believe.” And even less actual condemnation of supposed “extremist” views - views, which as I’ve said, come from leading feminists. Not random people on the internet. iiandyiii has said he thinks there should be “no standard” in child custody cases, but also conflates his position with that of the National Organization of Women. Others have said that feminism means equality for women, but they don’t seem to be able to support equality for men - which seems like a strange kind of equality.
How very generous of you. They’ll also see you doggedly attempting to discuss judaism in a thread on feminism (and my observations on your motivations in that regard - to create a slight possibility of bluffing hard that you’d shown me to be anti-semitic, and to conflate the ‘oppression’ of women with the eternal onslaught of anti-semitism. Curiously, I did once live on a commune which became ‘Wymmins Country’ (after the novel by Sheri S. Tepper) - but that’s an analogy for another thread).
I see you still haven’t figured out mature, respectful discussion - and yet you police it in others. The ad hom was your implied insult standing in for an argument, which satisfies my definition. Your argument that it doesn’t satisfy yours would be an argument if it had any argument in it. As it is, it’s just another insult. I expect there’s a word for that, though I don’t know if it’s one I might use here.
Who’s deciding who’s black, by the way? In SA, famously, a bureaucracy did that and issued you with a card. ‘Jewish’ is slightly easier, I suppose, though again this may be a US/UK thing - I’ve done some work with BAME groups, where Jews are considered part of ‘collective’ (though not apparently accorded the initial that changed BME to BAME). But again, the thread is on feminism and you keep insisting on discussing judaism, first as a religion and then slithering in ethnicity, with any sense of the original analogy lost in your purposeful confusion. Pull yourself back on topic. Really, who watches this watchman?
Well it’s a religion, as we’ve agreed, and like the romany it’s an ‘ethnicity’ too - more recent than the romany, of course, but carried over generations in communities. You’re going to have to be much clearer on your concepts if you genuinely desire anything other than shadow boxing here. Do all white people share the same ethnicity?
Are you queer? I might even have bumped into you at a party. Ever been in Dorset? Why you think I should have known, I can’t say. To be fair, you needn’t have know who posted about being a ‘self-identifying [etc]’ repeatedly in one post of this thread. You’re probably just skimming for stuff you can twist into a topic of your own (judaism, for some reason?)
If you recalled that exact quote being presented as a serious refutation from your own side, it would have been sporting to say so.
I haven’t checked the context, but you haven’t ever noticed me repeatedly making that very point, in the last thread and this, as ‘your team’ repeatedly offered ‘equality for women’ as their definition of feminism? One contributor said ‘equality’ between the sexes’, I recall remarking on that singularity at the time.
And yet you never felt compelled to point out that they couldn’t form a coherent argument - of course not, theirs was a feminist argument and adherents should not be encouraged to expect coherence.
I’ve now checked the context. The issue is clearly yours. Try reading it again slowly, looking up any words you aren’t sure of, and not moving on until you’re confident you’ve understood each element. It would also help to set aside your prejudice.
Ah! There’s your problem. Read what is there…and don’t read what isn’t!
Now you just look petulant. Drop the insults and snide insinuations, and discuss the topic, decently. You’re a role model for pity’s sake.
Cool meme, MMMo.
So, you know some feminists, but no egalitarians? Are your feminist friends racist? Homophobic? What’s wrong with all the feminists you know?
As for your ‘doubts’ about me, or LK, on what basis could these doubts be formed? Make a clear statement of your rational workings, or admit you’re just flinging faeces. How could he, or I, assuage your doubts? Is this a test we can pass? No, you have ‘cool story, bro’ to hand for any anecdote. It’s a shoddy debate tactic, which suggests your position is worth even less as an argument.
